Good without God

Reason alone is not enough to keep human beings humane.

It has beome an annual tradition: The days grow shorter, the holidays approach, and the American Humanist Association rolls out an ad campaign promoting atheism and disparaging religion.

Last year, the organization placed ads reading "No god? No problem!" on hundreds of billboards and buses in more than a dozen cities. Its theme in 2008 was: "Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness' sake."

This year, the association is taking a more combative tone. It is spending $200,000 to "directly challenge biblical morality" in advertisements appearing on network and cable TV, as well as in newspapers, magazines, and on public transit. The ads juxtapose violent or otherwise unpleasant passages from the Bible (or the Koran) with "humanist" quotations from prominent atheists. For example, a dreadful prophecy from the Hebrew prophet Hosea -- "The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open" -- is contrasted with Albert Einstein's comment that he "cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation."

Of course anyone can cherry-pick quotes to make a point. And of course it is true, as the humanist group's executive director Roy Speckhardt maintains, that there are "religious texts" that "advocate fear, intolerance, hate, and ignorance." Religion has often been put to evil purposes or invoked to justify shocking cruelty; the same is true of every area of human endeavor, from medicine to journalism to philosophy to the law.

But it will take more than a few grim verses plucked out of context to substantiate the core message of the American Humanist Association's ad campaign: that God and the Judeo-Christian tradition are not necessary for the preservation of moral values and that human reason is a better guide to goodness than Bible-based religion.

Can people be decent and moral without believing in a God who commands us to be good? Sure. There have always been kind and ethical nonbelievers. But how many of them reason their way to kindness and ethics, and how many simply reflect the moral expectations of the society in which they were raised?

In our culture, even the most passionate atheist cannot help having been influenced by the Judeo-Christian worldview that shaped Western civilization.

In our culture, even the most passionate atheist cannot help having been influenced by the Judeo-Christian worldview that shaped Western civilization. "We know that you can be good without God," Speckhardt tells CNN. He can be confident of that only because he lives in a society so steeped in Judeo-Christian values that he takes those values for granted. But a society bereft of that religious heritage is a society not even Speckhardt would want to live in.

For in a world without God, there is no obvious difference between good and evil. There is no way to prove that even murder is wrong if there is no Creator who decrees "Thou shalt not murder." It certainly cannot be proved wrong by reason alone. One might reason instead -- as Lenin and Stalin and Mao reasoned -- that there is nothing wrong with murdering human beings by the millions if doing so advances the Marxist cause. Or one might reason from observing nature that the way of the world is for the strong to devour the weak -- and that natural selection favors the survival of the fittest by any means necessary, including the killing of the less fit.

To us today, believers and nonbelievers alike, it may seem obvious that human life is precious and that the weakest among us deserve special protection. But would we think so absent a moral tradition stretching back to Sinai? It seemed obvious in classical antiquity that sickly babies should be killed. "We drown even children who at birth are weakly and abnormal," wrote the Roman philosopher Seneca the Younger 2,000 years ago, stressing that "it is not anger but reason" that justifies the murder of handicapped babies.

No, reason alone is not enough to keep human beings humane. Only if there is a God who forbids murder is murder definitively evil. Otherwise its wrongfulness is no more than a matter of opinion. Mao and Seneca approved of murder; we disapprove. Who are we to say they were wrong?

The God who created us, created us to be good. Atheists may believe -- and spend a small fortune advertising -- that we can all be "good without God." Human history tells a very different story.

Visitor Comments: 20

Human reason is fragile and unpredictable and often non consistent. The Torah is not. That is is one thing I have learned over time.

(18)
es58,
November 24, 2010 6:57 PM

to Paul: adding context

sorry, Russell's quote was on the linked, related article; here it is for context:
Bertrand Russell wrote:
I cannot see how to refute the arguments for the subjectivity of ethical values but I find myself incapable of believing that all that is wrong with wanton cruelty is that I don't like it.
Also, when I rhetorically asked: Why waste your time, my own answer would be that since, in fact, we do have souls, we really have no choice but to seek truth and good

(17)
es58,
November 23, 2010 10:21 PM

to paul: you wrote: one can actually be ethical and humane without any need for God

May I suggest: The above author's context for "good" is in the absolute/objective sense. You say you're an atheist. This usually implies that both the universe and life just happen to exist, basically an accident. Accidents are without meaning, so, it's hard to argue that anything in an accidental universe has meaning. This includes every form of ethical measurement: good/evil, right/wrong, righteous/wicked, even comparatives: better, worse, best, worst: all these terms become utterly meaningless in the absolute/objective sense. Therefore, your claim to being ethical/humane is shifted to a relative/subjective sense. But, at that point, all decisions are really just subjective preferences, which is the thrust of the quote above from Bertrand Russell. You're free, of course, to define your terms any way you want, but somewhere in there, there will probably be one of the ethical measurements or comparatives above, which are, again, meaningless words. The leaders of Iran and N Korea, etc can just as freely apply the same terms (ethical/humane) to their actions. Without an absolute standard for good, why even waste your time? Further, the relative standard, under pressure, will always eventually slide down the slope, slowly changing, until it's no longer recognizable.

(16)
Paul,
November 20, 2010 8:30 AM

Good without God

I am an atheist and from my experience, I find religious people are very insincere and hypocritical as what they profess is contrary to their actions. Secular humanism works for me and since I have never truly seen religion transform people's lives, I have therefore reached the conclusion that one can actually be ethical and humane without any need for God.

Anonymous,
May 22, 2013 2:47 PM

Just go to a place where there is no concept of the Jewish G-d

Try India. Can you imagine that level of poverty and human suffering taking place in a Western country? they don't take care of each other. the idea of I am my brother's Keeper is not part of their moral landscape. It's a Jewish idea. And it permitates all of western society. People don't get to that idea on their own. It's not a natural human drive. People who live in western culture and say they are athiests and believe that they would be who they are without any religion are kidding themselves. They live in a culture where there is ethical and moral herd immunity: as long as there is a suffiecent number of believers in the population, the society will project Jewish values and protect those who have rejected G-d.

(15)
Jen,
November 19, 2010 2:50 PM

Number 10 states perfectly well how reason is used to know what is good. In the same way that they are insinuating that "those in communion with God would write another one" is the same thing that happened with all other holy texts. Someone reasoned it and wrote it. In your own words, you have clearly stated how God is built in the image of man, not the other way around. The reason we know murder is wrong is because it is actually counter productive to evolution. People that have worked together advanced and continued their persistence in the world.
Second point to make is that if atheists commit crimes, they do not do it for the sake of that agenda, whereas religious crimes are committed in the name of God. During religious wars, it is God who is the motivating factor and this is not so for non-theists. In essence, if a non-theist commits a crime, he just happens to be that way, just as he may happen to be tall or short, or have brown eyes. He is not promoting this non-God or screaming out praise atheism as he commits murder. In conclusion, comparing the fact that atheists as well as theists commit crimes so we must negate both is completely misconstrued because you must look at the motivating factor involved.

(14)
Deborah,
November 17, 2010 6:29 AM

Kick #1 Off and Return to Him Later

I studied these godless groups and they ignore the still small voice, for awhile. Then in times such as this flat economy, they are racing against time to reconnect with that still small voice, once again.

(13)
Mike Lampard,
November 15, 2010 10:59 PM

Good, but it does not make the point strongly enough

I totally agree with the basic thrust of this article. Atheists and religionists are one and the same. They both have 'followers' who have been guilty of the most appalling crimes. yes, religion has orchestrated several bitter wars. However, ther 20th century has also seen worse wars orchestrated by atheists who have excelled in their destruction of humnan life. So what is the difference. the real point is that we, as humanity are capable of very real evil and, what is worse, we use either religion or atheist to justify it. Humanity is capable of, and chooses to implement terrible evil on its own citizens. Yes, without the law we choose evil.

(12)
Diane orelick,
November 15, 2010 8:22 PM

I was born into a tradition jewish family. I questioned at a young age the existence of god I consider myself a highly evolved person and logic is my guideline and logic tells me that murder and hate and bigotry are wrong. I was egnostic for a long time and now I am truly a non-theist. I like some of the traditions of judaism and I respect jewish law and respect buddism as well but as John Lennon put it" imagine no religion". Also many crimes are committed by so called religious people. Explain that to me?

(11)
Dvirah,
November 15, 2010 4:06 PM

Reply to no. 8, Anonymous November 15, 2010

Correct, but it is a start. The Talmud tells us that a person who begins to keep a Mitzvah for the wrong reason ends by keeping it for the right reason. My personal experience to a great extent corroborates this.

(10)
,
November 15, 2010 3:21 PM

Secular Humanist believe everything is orcstrated by people only, that there isn't a higher power. They believe all people are gods. O.K. so if they were all sent to a deserted island, alone,in their opinion there wouldn't be any gods to do good for them, or for them to do good for anyone else. If we didn't have the present day Torah, those in communion with God would write another one. If everyone had to start from scratch, God would still reveal himself to others. If you had a loved one killed and you cried out to God from your pain, God would hear your cries, and also comfort you that murder is wrong and you would personally know it was so. If your sponse cheated on you and you cried out to God over the pain of rejection, God would comfort you and let you know, yes adultry is wrong. If you lost a million dollars because someone lied to you and you cried out to God, once again God would hear and let you know lying is wrong what that person did.

(9)
Yosef,
November 15, 2010 2:36 AM

to #2, careful the logical errors

Erica (#2), The author addresses your point with the paragraph: "Of course anyone can cherry-pick quotes to make a point...Religion has often been put to evil purposes or invoked to justify shocking cruelty; the same is true of every area of human endeavor, from medicine to journalism to philosophy to the law." The logical mistake people tend to make is that they judge the quality of a particular law according to how humans apply it in life, rather than according to the law's intrinsic value. What is great about this article is that it points out that intrinsically, the moral code of atheists is inferior to that of G-d given laws. This is because the atheist's moral code is subject to unlimited change based on the whims of reason; instead, morality that comes from an Infinite source is non-negotiable, and reason does not justify uprooting it. For example, the atheist's folly is that once a situation presents itself where murder becomes a "rational" option to attain the "greater good," then "to murder" (as a moral imperitive) becomes the *proper* action. However, the strength of a G-d-given law "do not murder" is that no matter what the rationalle of faliable humans dictates -- do NOT murder. Therefore, the question we have to answer is: Which moral code should we instill in ourselves and our children for a better future?

(8)
Anonymous,
November 15, 2010 2:04 AM

We can use your same arguement and say you are cherry picking quotes to prove your case. How can you brush aside the quotes of hatred as if they are just innocent slips?
If the only reason we don't commit murder (and other sins) is becasue god says it is evil, then we are doing it without our hearts being touched by good. We would be doing "good things" but not being "good people". There is a big difference, and just following rules is not good enough.

(7)
Peter,
November 15, 2010 12:42 AM

Planned Parenthood Too

Planned Parenthood also approves of murder. They, of course, tell the girls they are only removing unwanted "tissue." But among themselves, they know they are killing babies. But they believe the lying and killing is justified. So they keep doing it.

(6)
Mitch,
November 14, 2010 10:41 PM

Alternate idea

Hi,
RE: 'There is no way to prove that even murder is wrong if there is no Creator who decrees "Thou shalt not murder." '
Think of all the religious people with deep faith in G-d who have found ways of rationalizing killing in several forms (wars, state-mediated punishment, etc.)
No belief system guarantees considerate behavior.
The teachings of 'that which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor' is valuable for all.

(5)
ruth housman,
November 14, 2010 7:58 PM

the word "god" is contained by the word "good"

You make some interesting comments about the origins of an ethical society, being the Ten Commandments and of course a long Judeo Christian tradition, and there are traditions from other cultures that do prohibit murder and specify what constitutes a moral code. However, even within these commandments of course the ethics is subject to massive discussion as prohibiting murder itself demands discussion, as there are many ethical issues within any one commandment and for that we deal with judgments, the idea of justice, mercy and the weighting of both sides.
We cannot obviously go backwards to a time, before the culture of the Ten Commandments and these prohibitions which serve as yardsticks. So it's an argument that cannot be refuted, as you made it.
Still, as someone on line did comment, there are people whose beliefs have very little to do with actions in terms of morality, compassion and love, and both atheists, agnostics and theists, abound who really do not act in loving, kind and ethically responsible manner. So it's not just God and a belief in God that gives us a morality of choice.
I believe, deeply, and atheists wouldn't like this, that anyone who loves with all their heart, soul and might, well they are fulfilling that to love G_d commandment, because what I see, is that diversity is not only the key but that divinity resides within every one of us. Yes, another story running but one that is embraced more and more in Orthodox and certainly spiritual circles around the world.

(4)
Judy,
November 14, 2010 6:15 PM

Please read this article carefully

In response to Erica, the article does not say that humanists have no moral compass. On the contrary, it says that most do, precisely because one has been provided by years of a Judeo-Christian belief system that they take for granted. Nor does it say that believing in God automatically makes someone good. Clearly all of us are sinners, and some are far greater sinners than others. It also bears pointing out that simply saying you believe in God does not make it so, any more than you can claim that God endorses your actions. I take comfort in my belief that there will be an eventual reckoning, and I try to live my life with that thought in mind. It's not that I do not sin, and I would like to believe that i would try to do what is right whether I thought I was going to be judged or not. But that is me, and all one has to do is pick up the paper or turn on the news to see too many examples of people who live as if there is no consequence at all to their actions, and that they owe their fellow human beings nothing, not even the right to live out their lives. Belief in God may not be the only answer, but it is the best that I have seen. How much worse would things be if everyone thought they were free to do whatever they felt and take whatever they wanted?

(3)
Judy,
November 14, 2010 6:04 PM

My sentiments exactly

The author's logic is so obvious that I fail to understand how seemingly intelligent people fail to grasp the idea. I am willing to acknowledge that people can be atheists and still be decent, but I have a great concern about those who find it necessary to beat those who believe in God into submission. Is this really the problem in today's society? That believing in God and having to eventually answer and pay for your actions is a problem, not an answer? Faith-based programs often have far better results than ones that simply try to use logic to talk people into changing their bad behavior, and the reason is that most of us want to think that good behavior will be rewarded and that bad behavior will be punished, even if it is after our lives have been lived. In a world where the day-to-day consequences are increasingly and conspicuously absent, logic would dictate that it is in society's best interests to promote religion, not try to drum it out of existence through a "separation of church and state" argument that bears no resemblance to what this country's founders actually believed. One has to wonder what the agenda of people who seem to actively despise religion really is.

(2)
Erica,
November 14, 2010 5:55 PM

Believing in God is a double-edged sword

You cannot say that humanists have no moral compass just the way you cannot say that believers will live upright lives. As we see all the time, there are religious people (fanatics, if you will) who believe so fervently that they do ghastly things in the name of God. This is an issue that doesn't lend itself to oversimplification.

(1)
Anonymous,
November 14, 2010 3:59 PM

Good without God?

All these ad's have to do with the christmas season coming up. The war on christmas. Since this pops up around christmas, (Mary Christ Mass), these ad's are really saying you don't have to be a christian to be good. When the war on christmas started, being into Marketing, what impact this was going to have. From my viewpoint it wasn't about whether people are good or not, it was about whether people was going to continue to spend during Nov. and Dec. and how this was going to effect the economy if they didn't. Since christmas isn't our holiday, from a religious standpoint we don't need to be concerned by the message and reason why the ad's are out there during their season of celebration. There are christians who disagree with the secular way of celebrating what is suppose to be a religious feast day. People are spending this year, they are getting into buying and giving. For those that are naughty, giving generously may help them become a better person. If christmas was no longer celebrated in the US, or it was band, like the puritans band it because they saw it as pagan, Marketing would reinvent to meet the needs of the times. If people don't have the money to spend, they just don't have the money to spend. Basic needs will always be around. Good without God? many people have different concepts of that. Some think that if you are not part of an organized religion, you are without God. Those that are good, have the teaching of the Lord written on their hearts. And God is the one who puts it there. Overall you do not have to celebrate christmas and the beliefs surrounding it to be a good person. And that is really what these ad's are all about during the christmas season. Non-religious buy gifts for their children, toys, clothes the latest electronic item, all year long. They are being good by taking care of the needs of their children, and giving them pleasure by non-basic need items, not because society tells them to at a certain time of year

I just got married and have an important question: Can we eat rice on Passover? My wife grew up eating it, and I did not. Is this just a matter of family tradition?

The Aish Rabbi Replies:

The Torah instructs a Jew not to eat (or even possess) chametz all seven days of Passover (Exodus 13:3). "Chametz" is defined as any of the five grains (wheat, spelt, barley, oats, and rye) that came into contact with water for more than 18 minutes. Chametz is a serious Torah prohibition, and for that reason we take extra protective measures on Passover to prevent any mistakes.

Hence the category of food called "kitniyot" (sometimes referred to generically as "legumes"). This includes rice, corn, soy beans, string beans, peas, lentils, peanuts, mustard, sesame seeds and poppy seeds. Even though kitniyot cannot technically become chametz, Ashkenazi Jews do not eat them on Passover. Why?

Products of kitniyot often appear like chametz products. For example, it can be hard to distinguish between rice flour (kitniyot) and wheat flour (chametz). Also, chametz grains may become inadvertently mixed together with kitniyot. Therefore, to prevent confusion, all kitniyot were prohibited.

In Jewish law, there is one important distinction between chametz and kitniyot. During Passover, it is forbidden to even have chametz in one's possession (hence the custom of "selling chametz"). Whereas it is permitted to own kitniyot during Passover and even to use it - not for eating - but for things like baby powder which contains cornstarch. Similarly, someone who is sick is allowed to take medicine containing kitniyot.

What about derivatives of kitniyot - e.g. corn oil, peanut oil, etc? This is a difference of opinion. Many will use kitniyot-based oils on Passover, while others are strict and only use olive or walnut oil.

Finally, there is one product called "quinoa" (pronounced "ken-wah" or "kin-o-ah") that is permitted on Passover even for Ashkenazim. Although it resembles a grain, it is technically a grass, and was never included in the prohibition against kitniyot. It is prepared like rice and has a very high protein content. (It's excellent in "cholent" stew!) In the United States and elsewhere, mainstream kosher supervision agencies certify it "Kosher for Passover" -- look for the label.

Interestingly, the Sefardi Jewish community does not have a prohibition against kitniyot. This creates the strange situation, for example, where one family could be eating rice on Passover - when their neighbors will not. So am I going to guess here that you are Ashkenazi and your wife is Sefardi. Am I right?

Yahrtzeit of Rabbi Moses ben Nachman (1194-1270), known as Nachmanides, and by the acronym of his name, Ramban. Born in Spain, he was a physician by trade, but was best-known for authoring brilliant commentaries on the Bible, Talmud, and philosophy. In 1263, King James of Spain authorized a disputation (religious debate) between Nachmanides and a Jewish convert to Christianity, Pablo Christiani. Nachmanides reluctantly agreed to take part, only after being assured by the king that he would have full freedom of expression. Nachmanides won the debate, which earned the king's respect and a prize of 300 gold coins. But this incensed the Church: Nachmanides was charged with blasphemy and he was forced to flee Spain. So at age 72, Nachmanides moved to Jerusalem. He was struck by the desolation in the Holy City -- there were so few Jews that he could not even find a minyan to pray. Nachmanides immediately set about rebuilding the Jewish community. The Ramban Synagogue stands today in Jerusalem's Old City, a living testimony to his efforts.

It's easy to be intimidated by mean people. See through their mask. Underneath is an insecure and unhappy person. They are alienated from others because they are alienated from themselves.

Have compassion for them. Not pity, not condemning, not fear, but compassion. Feel for their suffering. Identify with their core humanity. You might be able to influence them for the good. You might not. Either way your compassion frees you from their destructiveness. And if you would like to help them change, compassion gives you a chance to succeed.

It is the nature of a person to be influenced by his fellows and comrades (Rambam, Hil. De'os 6:1).

We can never escape the influence of our environment. Our life-style impacts upon us and, as if by osmosis, penetrates our skin and becomes part of us.

Our environment today is thoroughly computerized. Computer intelligence is no longer a science-fiction fantasy, but an everyday occurrence. Some computers can even carry out complete interviews. The computer asks questions, receives answers, interprets these answers, and uses its newly acquired information to ask new questions.

Still, while computers may be able to think, they cannot feel. The uniqueness of human beings is therefore no longer in their intellect, but in their emotions.

We must be extremely careful not to allow ourselves to become human computers that are devoid of feelings. Our culture is in danger of losing this essential aspect of humanity, remaining only with intellect. Because we communicate so much with unfeeling computers, we are in danger of becoming disconnected from our own feelings and oblivious to the feelings of others.

As we check in at our jobs, and the computer on our desk greets us with, "Good morning, Mr. Smith. Today is Wednesday, and here is the agenda for today," let us remember that this machine may indeed be brilliant, but it cannot laugh or cry. It cannot be happy if we succeed, or sad if we fail.

Today I shall...

try to remain a human being in every way - by keeping in touch with my own feelings and being sensitive to the feelings of others.

With stories and insights,
Rabbi Twerski's new book Twerski on Machzor makes Rosh Hashanah prayers more meaningful. Click here to order...